Authorities must decide construction-permission complaints by a reasoned order after hearing affected parties.

The petitioner alleged that respondents 5 and 6 were constructing on land in Survey No. 114/7, measuring 0.02.55 hectares (6.29 cents), at Kidarakulam Village, without the requisite planning permission or approval.

He had submitted a representation to the competent authorities concerning the alleged construction. The official respondents stated that the representation would be considered in accordance with law, after giving the private parties an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner sought a mandamus restraining respondents 1 to 4 from permitting construction without approval under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

1. Whether the Court should directly restrain the alleged construction, or instead direct the competent authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation.

2. Whether the authorities’ consideration of the representation should include a hearing for the petitioner and the affected private parties.

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, together with the rules framed under it.

The Court directed the competent authorities to consider the representation, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

The judgment cited no precedent and did not determine the legality of the construction or interpret the Act’s substantive requirements.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that consideration of the pending representation would address the grievance, and the official respondents agreed to consider it after hearing the private parties.

In light of those submissions, the Court chose not to decide the legality of the construction or the rival claims. It instead left those matters to the competent authority, requiring an independent, reasoned decision after hearing the petitioner, respondents 5 and 6, and any other necessary parties.

The exercise was to be completed within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the rival claims or the legality of the construction. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.